Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronic Schematics (alt.binaries.schematics.electronic) A place to show and share your electronics schematic drawings. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad
|
|||
|
|||
Bye, Bye! On Jan 1
Bye, Bye! On Jan 1: Flexible Spending Accounts will no longer be
allowed to purchase over the counter medications. All you "progressives" (what an oxymoron), enjoy! ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad
|
|||
|
|||
Bye, Bye! On Jan 1
"Jim Thompson" wrote in message ... Bye, Bye! On Jan 1: Flexible Spending Accounts will no longer be allowed to purchase over the counter medications. All you "progressives" (what an oxymoron), enjoy! ...Jim Thompson Only for OTC drugs, ' unless a prescription is obtained'. Hey get a prescription. Doctor shopping for Tylenol anyone? Cheers |
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad
|
|||
|
|||
Bye, Bye! On Jan 1
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:20:15 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
wrote: "Jim Thompson" wrote in message ... Bye, Bye! On Jan 1: Flexible Spending Accounts will no longer be allowed to purchase over the counter medications. All you "progressives" (what an oxymoron), enjoy! ...Jim Thompson Only for OTC drugs, ' unless a prescription is obtained'. Hey get a prescription. Doctor shopping for Tylenol anyone? Cheers Yep, OTC. I never take Tylenol... it puts me into shock :-( ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad
|
|||
|
|||
Bye, Bye! On Jan 1
"Martin Riddle" wrote in message
... Only for OTC drugs, ' unless a prescription is obtained'. Hey get a prescription. Doctor shopping for Tylenol anyone? What I wonder is whether or not your typical doctor will write you a prescription for your various OTC drugs just based on, e.g., a single-visit with $20 co-pay or whatever... or in the case of folks who are paying for the complete doctors visit, $100 if they're lucky!... vs. wanting to take a complete medical history, run some of their own tests, etc. -- all at a not-at-all-cheap price. Indeed, I think that -- at least by dollars spent -- the largest chunk of HSAs has historically gone to OTC drugs, and this change is not at all in the consumer's best interest. It sounds more like the thing some prescription drug company lobbyists would have pushed for, knowing that if you're going to have to see a doctor for OTC drug prescriptions, even if something like Sudafed has traditionally worked reasonably well for you, you'll be quite likely to at least give some non-OTC drug a try due to figuring that, in general, non-OTC drugs are more powerful and therefore perhaps better than the OTC ones. ---Joel |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad
|
|||
|
|||
Bye, Bye! On Jan 1
"flipper" wrote in message
... Of course you do. Mommy government wouldn't screw you, right? In general, no, but the country is so dysfunctional today that even reasonable people will do things like, oh, say, vote on a bill despite not having read or received summaries of what's in all 2400 pages of it. Or even if they have, understanding that few bills are 100% agreeable and sometimes it's best to vote for those that are, say, "mostly" good. 'Free' healthcare has to be paid for, you know, and the cap alone is expected to raise $13 billion Well, cutting back HSA benefits is a dishonest way to go about doing it. And so it was written that with the stroke of a pen the Lord Congress almighty and their right hand regulator giveth and taketh away all things. The HSA bit here seems like something that should be easy for Republicans to fix, though -- with a very simple bill that just reverts HSAs to pre-Obamacare terms and nothing more, what Democrat would stand there and claim that, no, it's better if you can't save as much for yourself? Even the viable argument of, "I won't vote for it unless there's money to pay for the shortfall doing so will create" doesn't usually pass muster with the voters. ---Joel |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad
|
|||
|
|||
Bye, Bye! On Jan 1
"flipper" wrote in message
... "In general" government routinely screws people and this administration has that as their proclaimed core principle called 'spread the wealth' and 'social justice': the process of deliberately picking groups to 'screw' for the purpose of bribing the others. Hmm, that is a rather interesting premise... do you really think the administratoin is that scheming? Or they aren't even aware of what they're doing? I dispute your premise. The 'reasonable people' didn't vote for it. Well, that's a representative democracy for you, I guess... Those people don't care about principles, law, the Constitution, or process and Obama explicitly said so when the matter was brought up, proclaiming that 'the people', a proxy term for himself, don't care about 'the process'. At least he thinks Steve Jobs ought to be rich? :-) The HSA bit here seems like something that should be easy for Republicans to fix, though -- with a very simple bill that just reverts HSAs to pre-Obamacare terms and nothing more, what Democrat would stand there and claim that, no, it's better if you can't save as much for yourself? Are you KIDDING me? "For yourself?" Their whole PREMISE is that GOVERNMENT should 'do it for you' and to hell with "yourself." Some Democrats -- and even a few Republicans -- may believe that, but they're not going to go on public record starting as much... They're the ones you think give a flying fig about your 'costs' and doing things "for yourself?" I like to believe that some of them do, yes. See, e.g., blue dog democrats... It's only 'viable' if you think government has unlimited powers to do whatever the hell it feels like and then send you the bill for it. These days I kinda think they do -- and they have for many decades now. ---Joel |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad
|
|||
|
|||
Bye, Bye! On Jan 1
Joel Koltner wrote: "flipper" wrote in message ... Of course you do. Mommy government wouldn't screw you, right? In general, no, but the country is so dysfunctional today that even reasonable people will do things like, oh, say, vote on a bill despite not having read or received summaries of what's in all 2400 pages of it. Or even if they have, understanding that few bills are 100% agreeable and sometimes it's best to vote for those that are, say, "mostly" good. 'Free' healthcare has to be paid for, you know, and the cap alone is expected to raise $13 billion Well, cutting back HSA benefits is a dishonest way to go about doing it. And so it was written that with the stroke of a pen the Lord Congress almighty and their right hand regulator giveth and taketh away all things. The HSA bit here seems like something that should be easy for Republicans to fix, though -- with a very simple bill that just reverts HSAs to pre-Obamacare terms and nothing more, what Democrat would stand there and claim that, no, it's better if you can't save as much for yourself? Even the viable argument of, "I won't vote for it unless there's money to pay for the shortfall doing so will create" doesn't usually pass muster with the voters. Even better: Just repeal it for those who haven't been registered Democrat for the last decade. -- For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off scientist!!! |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad
|
|||
|
|||
Bye, Bye! On Jan 1
Joel Koltner wrote: "flipper" wrote in message ... Of course you do. Mommy government wouldn't screw you, right? In general, no, but the country is so dysfunctional today that even reasonable people will do things like, oh, say, vote on a bill despite not having read or received summaries of what's in all 2400 pages of it. Or even if they have, understanding that few bills are 100% agreeable and sometimes it's best to vote for those that are, say, "mostly" good. 'Free' healthcare has to be paid for, you know, and the cap alone is expected to raise $13 billion Well, cutting back HSA benefits is a dishonest way to go about doing it. And so it was written that with the stroke of a pen the Lord Congress almighty and their right hand regulator giveth and taketh away all things. The HSA bit here seems like something that should be easy for Republicans to fix, though -- with a very simple bill that just reverts HSAs to pre-Obamacare terms and nothing more, what Democrat would stand there and claim that, no, it's better if you can't save as much for yourself? Even the viable argument of, "I won't vote for it unless there's money to pay for the shortfall doing so will create" doesn't usually pass muster with the voters. Even better: Just repeal it for those who haven't been registered Democrat for the last decade. -- For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off scientist!!! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|